| Abstrakt: |
This study examines the political strategies of 21 right-wing women in influencing textbook selections for the Texas public schools and contrasts the strategies of antifeminists and feminists during the textbook adoption process. The two groups were observed as having not only different ends in view but different organizational principles, different styles of lobbying, and different degrees of success. The antifeminists belong to a number of overlapping conservative groups; however they chose to present themselves not as members of their groups, but as concerned individuals, even though they conceived and executed group strategies. The rightwing women had considerable more experience in and knowledge of the political system and its milieu than the feminists and they expended more time per person than the feminists on the textbook criticism process, dealing with individuals and procedures intensively at every step. Their greater political experience in turn brings them greater success—the deletion of some objectionable books from adoption consideration. Two major ironies are discovered. The first is that antifeminist women who espouse the prescription of traditional sex roles are themselves challenging traditional roles by their long-term involvement in political policy making. The second is that feminists, organized as NOW members to challenge sexism in Texas' public school textbooks, presented a more authoritarian and a more paranoid image to the public than the antifeminists. Furthermore, antifeminism was found not to be isolated issue involving only the ERA, but a constellation of interrelated issues and a vast communications network in need of further study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
